Greetings,
I hope all of you are enjoying the summer. It has been brutally hot and humid this week here in Houston. I'm missing Vermont right about now.
So conflict rages on in various countries in the Middle East, Ukraine, and probably many other areas of the world that the media has forgotten about for the time being. We still have forces in Afghanistan and a crisis on our border with Mexico. We have gang violence in many cities across America that almost makes some neighborhoods more dangerous than a war zone. And yet, the same old hawks are beating the war drum for interventionist policies. What's crazy is that some of my friends who are self-described Libertarians buy into the hype. We have become so programmed for war as a nation with our culture of military worship that a large majority of people tend to favor America stepping in because they think it is our moral obligation or something. They buy into the whole Condi Rice argument that if "America doesn't lead the world, then someone else will, and probably a nation that is adversarial to our interests and values."
Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex over 53 years ago. Unfortunately, his warnings fell upon def ears. Watch an episode of Meet the Press on Sunday morning and see how many ads you see for Boeing or Northrup Grumman. It's crazy. They'll literally be talking about intervention in Iraq, or Israel/Palestine, or anywhere, and then cut to a commercial of how great Boeing or Northrup is for the United States. Really? What can I buy from Boeing? Are they selling their drones at Wal-Mart or Best Buy now? Anyway, I'll take off my tin-foil hat and throw some academic arguments at you for a bit.
All the authors I will cite here are academics holding at least one Doctoral degree, if not more. They are all published and peer reviewed and highly respected authorities on foreign affairs. Please take the time to look them up and see their credentials. These suggestions aren't coming from my emotional bias toward Libertarianism or Ron Paul. Book references listed at the bottom.
"In reality, interveners are never in a good position to understand what objectives are actually achievable or how to achieve them before the mission starts" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 188).
"There is no evidence that even the most powerful countries, such as the United States, have found a way to make nation building under fire successful" (Stewart & Knaus, p. 192).
"The question that urgently demands attention--the question that Americans can no longer afford to dodge--is not whether the United States has become an empire (it has). The question is what sort of empire they intend theirs to be. For policymakers to persist in pretending otherwise--to indulge in myths of American innocence or fantasies about unlocking the secrets of history--is to increase the likelihood that the answers they come up with will be wrong. That way lies not just the demise of the American empire but great danger for what used to be known as the American republic" (Bacevich, p. 244).
"World politics in the twenty-first century will in all likelihood be driven primarily by blowback from the second half of the twentieth century--that is, from the unintended consequences of the Cold War and the crucial American decision to maintain a Cold War posture in a post-Cold War world" (Johnson, p. 229).
"A smart power strategy requires that the old distinction between realists and liberals needs to give way to a new synthesis that we might call liberal realism...This does not mean imposing American values by force. Democracy promotion is better accomplished by soft attraction rather than hard coercion, and it takes time and patience...The United States would be wise to try encouraging the gradual evolution of democracy but in a manner that accepts the reality of diversity" (Nye, p. 231).
Globalization is a good thing for true subscribers of libertarian ideals and laissez-faire economics. However, it does create a new dynamic where American foreign policy has a direct impact on the day-to-day lives of citizens and residents here in the United States. This should be reason enough to motivate us to school ourselves up on foreign policy and vote accordingly. We've barely begun to see the forces of blowback from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
One last thought to leave you with:
Think about one negative experience from your childhood that has shaped who you are today as an adult. Maybe you got your bike stolen by a minority and now you have a bias against them. Maybe one of your parents was an alcoholic, so now you've vowed to never drink alcohol. Maybe you or someone you know was bullied, and so you are outspoken against bullying or involved in an anti-bullying campaign. You get the idea. Now think about the impact that has made on you and your beliefs today. Lastly, imagine an Iraqi kid whose mother, father, or close relative was killed by an American soldier, whether it was an accident or due to that relatives involvement with the "bad guys." Would he or she be justified in hating America or vowing revenge? Our actions overseas have bred anti-American sentiment. Contrary to what the mainstream media and our former president preach about Muslims hating our freedom, they actually hate our military imperialism.
So the solution is obvious. Thomas Jefferson said it over two centuries ago; "Commerce with all nations. Entangling alliances with none."
Stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
References:
Bacevich, A. (2002). American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S.
Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, C. (2004). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.
Nye, J.S. (2011). The Future of Power. New York, NY: Perseus Books.
Stewart, R. & Knaus, G. (2012). Can Intervention Work?. New York, NY:
W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
My Personal Experience with Obamacare
Hello to those of you who actually read my rants,
The last few days have been a whirlwind for me. Not only am I absolutely enraged by some of the statements in the mainstream media, as well as alternative media regarding Iraq, but I also had my first real experience with accessing health care since getting out of the military.
Let me make this more clear; I had my first real experience with getting my family access to health care since leaving the military. I go to the VA for care even though it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy to navigate and can be pretty frustrating. I must admit, I'm willing to put up with it in order to not have to pay out of pocket. However, now I might as well use a private doctor because the Affordable Care Act has required me to insure myself in order to insure my two sons and wife. I found this out because my family's health insurance plan was expiring because of me getting out of the military (Military health insurance lasts for 180 days after you get out). So long story short, I started trying to find health insurance to buy for my family so that they would still be covered (I haven't been with my company long enough to get their insurance, and from what I hear from coworkers, it isn't anything to rejoice about).
Like most veterans, I am a member of USAA. So I did some shopping around before I asked them about health insurance. They are partnered with a company called Assurant Health that offers medical, dental, and vision insurance. Pretty cool; I can handle all my insurance needs (car, house, life, medical, etc.) through USAA. That's the only upside to this story.
So my military health insurance expired on June 28th. As luck would have it, my wife got really sick on the 29th. You might be thinking, "why didn't you just use the new insurance through USAA?" Well, Obamacare won't let you start a new insurance plan without having a "qualifying circumstance." Furthermore, that plan can only start on the 1st of the month. Additionally, as I eluded to before, I had to get a plan for my entire family (including myself) so that my kids and wife could be covered. I literally spent two hours on the phone with the lady explaining to her that I could go to the VA for all my needs and didn't need a policy for myself. "Sorry," she said. "You can't just buy a policy for your kids and wife without you being on it." What's worse, is that I now pay $1,100 a month for a plan for a family of 4 because of my income. Granted, I could've got one for $750 a month that would have had a higher copay and required referrals from a primary care provider, but we agreed that the extra cost would be worth avoiding the headache of going through the HMO system. But still, $750 is a lot of dough. You would think that rate would get you lower copays and not having to go through a primary care provider to be seen by a specialist for an area of your body you already know needs attention from a specialist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this example. If your foot hurts under the HMO system, you have to go to your primary care provider (A general physician) to get a referral to see a podiatrist. This can take time and be a pretty frustrating process. Furthermore, the referral can only be in network and be with a doctor that is pre-approved by your HMO. So in order to have more control over our health care, we opted to pay more per month.
This is great. I grew up in the lower middle class (sometimes in the upper lower class depending on the time period), and now my first chance to get ahead in life and create a better future for my offspring requires that I pay a higher insurance premium because of the "Affordable Care Act." Awesome!
For those of you haven't really done your research on the Affordable Care Act, just know this; there is no such thing as getting insurance that isn't Obamacare. A relative of mine tried to tell me she got a plan that is only $172 a month and "it isn't Obamacare or anything subsidized." I laughed. The Affordable Care Act governs all insurance policies in the country and if you go out into the "marketplace" on your own as I did, things like your income help determine your premium. Another "tax" on success. Glad I worked my ass off for the past 15 years and did well in college so that I could get a good paying job and have to pay higher insurance premiums. There are new rules that insurance companies, like mine, have to abide by (like when your policy can start, and who has to be on the policy). So just because you have health insurance through your company or with a "private" company that you had before the ACA, that health insurance policy is still governed by the ACA.
My point is this; for me, Obamacare isn't "affordable." And because of the new rules, I had to pay out of pocket for my wife to get seen and get medicine for her illness. But this actually brings me to the next point which I always try to implement into my blog posts, the solution!
So luckily there is a Walgreen's close to our house with a "Minute Clinic." There is a Physician's Assistant (PA) on duty 7 days a week. My wife went there, was diagnosed and given a prescription. Out the door, medicine in hand, total cost $165. Boy was I glad it wasn't more. But it got me thinking. We are pretty healthy people and don't go to the doctor that often; maybe once a year a piece for my wife and I, and two times a year a piece for the kids just for "mandatory" vaccines so they can attend their school. So $1,100 a month times 12 is $13,200. That's a lot of money that I could be putting into their college fund rather than paying for other people's subsidized and much lower insurance premiums. I could give half that amount a month to a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to underprivileged folks and it would make way more of a difference. Now I know the first thing some of you are going to argue is; "what if they get cancer or tuberculosis?" Well, yeah, I think we should have insurance for that, just like we have car insurance in case we get into a wreck, but it shouldn't cost $1,100 a month, or even $750 a month. If we all paid some sort of "medical catastrophe" insurance, and then only paid the doctor directly when we needed to visit, then health care would be much cheaper for everyone.
For those of you who think health care is a human right; please answer these questions:
1) How do you say that someone has a right to health care at the economic expense of somebody else?
2) If you are entitled to health care because it is your human right; is the doctor's human obligation to treat you?
3) If there were no doctors, should the government force people to go to medical school so that you could receive your human right to health care?
I think nobody should physically or legally inhibit you from getting whatever healthcare you want, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to provide it for you. Doctor's, as well as employers, should have the right to deny services just like you should have the right to do what you want with your own body. It is up to you to find a another party who consents to rendering whatever services you are seeking. Don't try to use the Supreme Court and the Legislative system to require people to pay for something for you that is a personal choice to take (birth control-Hobby Lobby).
This whole issue is just another issue ruining our country. Once people start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting the government to take money by force and coercion from other people in order to provide services to them, we might head down a better path. And before you try to call me out for being a hypocrite and using a government program (VA healthcare), please know that I would gladly pay for my own healthcare (which I do now anyways even though I am supposedly "entitled" to VA healthcare) if the government totally got out of the healthcare business and started letting Americans govern their own personal lives.
Last note: Many people who I respect have expressed disdain for today's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling that says businesses don't have to provide birth control due to religious beliefs. This shouldn't even have been spun as a religious issue. No person or business should be required to give anything to an employee except a paycheck for the work they perform. What is wrong with people when they feel so entitled that somebody else owes them something that has nothing to do with their job? People make a choice to have sex and to have kids or not have kids. Unless your job is to have sex with people for a paycheck, then I see no place for birth control to even be involved in the compensation package. And even then, I would say it shouldn't be mandated by the government.
I understand the statement; "Get your beliefs off my body." And I agree. But I say get your beliefs out of my wallet. I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom or with your body and you shouldn't be able to require me to pay for shit you want to put in your body and that you should pay for yourself. Bottom line.
Sorry this blog was more of a rant than a constructive post, but I got really heated today when I learned about how the federal government was making my life way more stressful. I'm making more money than I did in the Marines, but still WAY WAY less than Obama's magic $250K a year number (top of the middle class income earners), yet I still get penalized for climbing the socioeconomic ladder by having to pay higher health care insurance premiums. I hope he doesn't try to pass the "Affordable Car Insurance, or Affordable Renter's Insurance Act." I'll have to start moonlighting just to pay insurance premiums.
Until next time, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
The last few days have been a whirlwind for me. Not only am I absolutely enraged by some of the statements in the mainstream media, as well as alternative media regarding Iraq, but I also had my first real experience with accessing health care since getting out of the military.
Let me make this more clear; I had my first real experience with getting my family access to health care since leaving the military. I go to the VA for care even though it is a nightmare of a bureaucracy to navigate and can be pretty frustrating. I must admit, I'm willing to put up with it in order to not have to pay out of pocket. However, now I might as well use a private doctor because the Affordable Care Act has required me to insure myself in order to insure my two sons and wife. I found this out because my family's health insurance plan was expiring because of me getting out of the military (Military health insurance lasts for 180 days after you get out). So long story short, I started trying to find health insurance to buy for my family so that they would still be covered (I haven't been with my company long enough to get their insurance, and from what I hear from coworkers, it isn't anything to rejoice about).
Like most veterans, I am a member of USAA. So I did some shopping around before I asked them about health insurance. They are partnered with a company called Assurant Health that offers medical, dental, and vision insurance. Pretty cool; I can handle all my insurance needs (car, house, life, medical, etc.) through USAA. That's the only upside to this story.
So my military health insurance expired on June 28th. As luck would have it, my wife got really sick on the 29th. You might be thinking, "why didn't you just use the new insurance through USAA?" Well, Obamacare won't let you start a new insurance plan without having a "qualifying circumstance." Furthermore, that plan can only start on the 1st of the month. Additionally, as I eluded to before, I had to get a plan for my entire family (including myself) so that my kids and wife could be covered. I literally spent two hours on the phone with the lady explaining to her that I could go to the VA for all my needs and didn't need a policy for myself. "Sorry," she said. "You can't just buy a policy for your kids and wife without you being on it." What's worse, is that I now pay $1,100 a month for a plan for a family of 4 because of my income. Granted, I could've got one for $750 a month that would have had a higher copay and required referrals from a primary care provider, but we agreed that the extra cost would be worth avoiding the headache of going through the HMO system. But still, $750 is a lot of dough. You would think that rate would get you lower copays and not having to go through a primary care provider to be seen by a specialist for an area of your body you already know needs attention from a specialist. If you don't know what I'm talking about, consider this example. If your foot hurts under the HMO system, you have to go to your primary care provider (A general physician) to get a referral to see a podiatrist. This can take time and be a pretty frustrating process. Furthermore, the referral can only be in network and be with a doctor that is pre-approved by your HMO. So in order to have more control over our health care, we opted to pay more per month.
This is great. I grew up in the lower middle class (sometimes in the upper lower class depending on the time period), and now my first chance to get ahead in life and create a better future for my offspring requires that I pay a higher insurance premium because of the "Affordable Care Act." Awesome!
For those of you haven't really done your research on the Affordable Care Act, just know this; there is no such thing as getting insurance that isn't Obamacare. A relative of mine tried to tell me she got a plan that is only $172 a month and "it isn't Obamacare or anything subsidized." I laughed. The Affordable Care Act governs all insurance policies in the country and if you go out into the "marketplace" on your own as I did, things like your income help determine your premium. Another "tax" on success. Glad I worked my ass off for the past 15 years and did well in college so that I could get a good paying job and have to pay higher insurance premiums. There are new rules that insurance companies, like mine, have to abide by (like when your policy can start, and who has to be on the policy). So just because you have health insurance through your company or with a "private" company that you had before the ACA, that health insurance policy is still governed by the ACA.
My point is this; for me, Obamacare isn't "affordable." And because of the new rules, I had to pay out of pocket for my wife to get seen and get medicine for her illness. But this actually brings me to the next point which I always try to implement into my blog posts, the solution!
So luckily there is a Walgreen's close to our house with a "Minute Clinic." There is a Physician's Assistant (PA) on duty 7 days a week. My wife went there, was diagnosed and given a prescription. Out the door, medicine in hand, total cost $165. Boy was I glad it wasn't more. But it got me thinking. We are pretty healthy people and don't go to the doctor that often; maybe once a year a piece for my wife and I, and two times a year a piece for the kids just for "mandatory" vaccines so they can attend their school. So $1,100 a month times 12 is $13,200. That's a lot of money that I could be putting into their college fund rather than paying for other people's subsidized and much lower insurance premiums. I could give half that amount a month to a nonprofit organization that provides healthcare to underprivileged folks and it would make way more of a difference. Now I know the first thing some of you are going to argue is; "what if they get cancer or tuberculosis?" Well, yeah, I think we should have insurance for that, just like we have car insurance in case we get into a wreck, but it shouldn't cost $1,100 a month, or even $750 a month. If we all paid some sort of "medical catastrophe" insurance, and then only paid the doctor directly when we needed to visit, then health care would be much cheaper for everyone.
For those of you who think health care is a human right; please answer these questions:
1) How do you say that someone has a right to health care at the economic expense of somebody else?
2) If you are entitled to health care because it is your human right; is the doctor's human obligation to treat you?
3) If there were no doctors, should the government force people to go to medical school so that you could receive your human right to health care?
I think nobody should physically or legally inhibit you from getting whatever healthcare you want, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to provide it for you. Doctor's, as well as employers, should have the right to deny services just like you should have the right to do what you want with your own body. It is up to you to find a another party who consents to rendering whatever services you are seeking. Don't try to use the Supreme Court and the Legislative system to require people to pay for something for you that is a personal choice to take (birth control-Hobby Lobby).
This whole issue is just another issue ruining our country. Once people start taking responsibility for themselves and not expecting the government to take money by force and coercion from other people in order to provide services to them, we might head down a better path. And before you try to call me out for being a hypocrite and using a government program (VA healthcare), please know that I would gladly pay for my own healthcare (which I do now anyways even though I am supposedly "entitled" to VA healthcare) if the government totally got out of the healthcare business and started letting Americans govern their own personal lives.
Last note: Many people who I respect have expressed disdain for today's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling that says businesses don't have to provide birth control due to religious beliefs. This shouldn't even have been spun as a religious issue. No person or business should be required to give anything to an employee except a paycheck for the work they perform. What is wrong with people when they feel so entitled that somebody else owes them something that has nothing to do with their job? People make a choice to have sex and to have kids or not have kids. Unless your job is to have sex with people for a paycheck, then I see no place for birth control to even be involved in the compensation package. And even then, I would say it shouldn't be mandated by the government.
I understand the statement; "Get your beliefs off my body." And I agree. But I say get your beliefs out of my wallet. I shouldn't be able to tell you what to do in your bedroom or with your body and you shouldn't be able to require me to pay for shit you want to put in your body and that you should pay for yourself. Bottom line.
Sorry this blog was more of a rant than a constructive post, but I got really heated today when I learned about how the federal government was making my life way more stressful. I'm making more money than I did in the Marines, but still WAY WAY less than Obama's magic $250K a year number (top of the middle class income earners), yet I still get penalized for climbing the socioeconomic ladder by having to pay higher health care insurance premiums. I hope he doesn't try to pass the "Affordable Car Insurance, or Affordable Renter's Insurance Act." I'll have to start moonlighting just to pay insurance premiums.
Until next time, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Iraq, ISIS, and the Solution
Greetings,
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
I hope you all have been surviving the recent overwhelming propaganda and rhetoric coming from "Inside the Beltway." If you're a futbol (soccer) fan, at least you have the World Cup to take your mind off the massive influx of BS coming from the talking heads.
I was going to avoid blogging about Iraq, but all the beating of the war drums from some of my fellow Iraq war veterans has disturbed me to the point of chiming in. Let me start by plainly and blatantly saying that we do not need to intervene for any reason whatsoever and there is not a single US interest in bringing stability back to Iraq (not even because we are the ones who caused the instability). Now, I know it is somewhat too late since we technically have already intervened on a small scale by sending in "military advisors." However, we should not go a step further, and here's why:
1. One more American life lost as a result of a war that was started on false premises is not worth it, nor is any other life for that matter. I too lost friends and guys who were literally like family to me in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that going back to Iraq and fixing this (even if we could) would make their loss be any less in vain. All the lives lost in Iraq were in vain and there is nothing we can do to change that. There was no global threat by Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and his followers were never going to come to America and take away our liberties and implement Sharia Law. Saddam Hussein was never going to bomb American cities with his supposed arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or the "yellow cake" he was supposedly stockpiling to make them. More armed conflict won't fix any of our past indiscretions.
2. We've already lost our money there and we have no further economic advantage to gain from intervening (not that economic profits or losses should ever affect the decision to engage in armed conflict). Iraq doesn't have some huge market in which American businesses sell their goods and services. If Iraq decays into further chaos and turmoil, it doesn't mean that a mass of American citizens will lose their jobs and livelihood. And again, even if it did mean those things, that shouldn't justify us engaging in a war.
3. My last argument for the sake of conciseness is that we have proven we suck at fighting a counterinsurgency. Mr. Miagi once told Daniel-son; "I only fight the battles I know I can win." We don't know we can win that battle. If we know anything, we know we could lose it because we have already lost two counterinsurgencies. I know that is a hard pill to swallow for my fellow brainwashed veterans and those still on active duty, but it's true. We got beat. Maybe we never lost a gunfight with the enemy, but we lost the war. We need to cut our losses and go back to the drafting table, just like the Miami Heat are doing right now.
So as with all my blog posts, I try to propose a solution. In this scenario, it's kind of hard. My solution would be to do nothing, and to stop whatever we're doing now. There is no zero-sum game in global politics. Iran getting influence in Iraq doesn't mean the decline of the United States. If anything, Iran can exhaust their resources just like we did. They'll fail at a counterinsurgency just as we did. Let them. Their gain doesn't mean our loss. However, this type of proposal is usually labeled "isolationist," which is a dirty word in Washington, D.C. and among those that think the USA has to be involved in all international affairs and conflicts in order to maintain its status as a global power, actually THE global power.
We still are the only global power on Earth. Every other nation you hear the mainstream media fear mongering the population about is really just a regional power. China is the elephant in the room in Asia, Iran might be in the Middle East; however, Israel is a close contender. Russia is really only a threat to non-EU/non-NATO states in Europe, and I wouldn't even call them a threat.
So to get to the point, if we have to do something, it should not be militaristic in nature. We need to start and win a propaganda campaign in Iraq that makes ISIS look bad, or at least worse than Maliki's government. And we should do this using Iraqi personnel and resources only, meaning no "infidel American" faces passing out pro-Maliki propaganda on the streets of Iraq. Not sure why we didn't learn from our successful Cold War tactics of having the locals do all the legwork for us, but it definitely works better than bureaucrats from Washington trying to figure out how to operate in a foreign environment with an extremely different culture.
Lastly, to all of you who have said or thought; "Hey, we need to go finish the job!"... screw you. What job? What was our job in the first place? Ask yourself that. Use that brain in between your ears and think about those long hot days we spent in Iraq and the people who died or were injured. Then try to quantify what you really accomplished for the "Greater Good" and how it benefits anyone here at home.
Until next time my friends, stay conscious.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Monday, June 9, 2014
The Real Issue w/ Bowe Bergdahl
Well, well, well...
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Again, I wanted to wait to "contribute" on this issue until the sensationalized media settled down a bit. The media is totally addressing the wrong issues surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange.
The right wing is saying we shouldn't negotiate with terrorists, which is wrong in my opinion and I'll explain why later.
The left is saying that it is our duty to bring all service members home from a war we sent them to, which I agree with, and actually it is already precedent. However, the Obama Administration did several things wrong in this instance:
1. Trading top level commanders for a low level enlisted soldier.
2. Not giving Congress the agreed upon 30 days notice laid out in last years reauthorization of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).
3. They used the word "hero" to refer to Bowe Bergdahl.
So back to the point of negotiating with terrorists. First let's refer to our old friend Merriam Webster to define terrorist:
Terrorist - an individual who uses acts of violence and intimidation to frighten people as a way to achieve a political goal.
If you agree with that definition, then the Nazis were terrorists, the Asad regime is operated by terrorists, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, and the list could go on and on. So the first point is that we have negotiated with terrorists in the past. The second point (the more important one) is that we should negotiate with terrorist if we hope to actually influence change and not just continue armed conflict.
Believe me, as a former Marine, I'm the first person who gets riled up and likes to resort to American military might against the "bad guys." But that course of action rarely achieves desirable outcomes, as we've seen with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just to drive the nail home, Muqtada al-Sadr was the leader of an extremely violent and effective terrorist group in Iraq. Now he is the leader of a political party holding seats in Iraq's parliament and has vowed to use the political system to achieve his goals rather than violence. I see this as a good thing. Again, this happened because we negotiated with him and brought him to the table rather than forcing him to operate outside the system.
So hopefully I've made the case for negotiating with terrorists. However, that doesn't mean we should engage in bad negotiations with them. To expound on my earlier points about what the Obama Administration did wrong:
1. Look at the trade from a different perspective:
- Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa (former governor of Taliban held region) would be like Jeb Bush
- Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban Army's Chief of Staff) would be like U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno
- Mullah Norullah Noori (former Governor of Taliban controlled region) would be like Mitt Romney
-Abdul Haq Wasiq (Deputy Chief of Taliban's Intelligence Service) would be like Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael J. Morell
-Mohammad Nabi Omari (Taliban Communications Chief) would be like Jay Carney (Former White House Press Secretary)
So do you think if the Taliban had the aforementioned American personnel held in one of their prisons and we had a low level guy like Bowe Bergdahl, that they would trade? I'd bet not.
2. Giving Congress the required 30 days notice:
This is pretty self explanatory. This country is supposedly governed by the rule of law. If our leaders don't abide by that law, then what good is our system?
3. We are not heroes:
Lately, I have heard complaints by journalists on NPR and other news outlets that accuse Bergdahl's platoon mates of changing the narrative on this story and causing all this bad press by stating that he was a deserter and that several deaths were a direct result of his desertion. They only spoke out because the media was referring to Bergdahl as a hero. If you bother to read most of Bergdahl's platoon mates' opinions and concerns, it was not the actual exchange that bothered them, but that everyone was referring to him as a hero. This points to a larger problem in our society. Military veterans are not heroes. I can say this because I am one. We sign up knowing what we are getting into, and more importantly, what we are getting out of it. People can say they didn't join for the college money or benefits, but you really don't know unless those benefits don't exist. We are paid well, fed well, and housed. On top of all that, if you get the slightest service connected injury, you get a check for the rest of your life from the VA. Oh yeah, that doesn't mention the GI Bill to pay for college and the no money down government backed mortgages we can get. That's just the basic stuff that is known to everyone. The benefits go on and on. So please, stop calling us heroes, especially a guy like Bowe Bergdahl. Even if he didn't desert his post, does it make you a hero to get captured by the enemy?
So in keeping with the theme of the blog, here's the solution:
Yes, negotiate with terrorists. Get them to lay down their arms and pick up their pens and foghorns. However, don't trade pearls for sand. Better yet, don't get our military into unnecessary situations that lead to scenarios like this. And more importantly, if you're the President or Congress, obey the legislative protocols that you signed into law.
Again, this all goes back to our failure as a society to engage our leaders and hold them accountable for their bad policies. Conservatives and Liberals alike continuously reelect bad politicians like John McCain and Harry Reid. I think we should personally have six year terms for every federal political office and that only one term should be allowed. Every six years, you'd get a completely new roster. Imagine what that would do for special interests.
So I hope you all decide to think critically when taking your stance on the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner exchange. We do owe it to our soldiers to bring them home; however, it doesn't mean we have to do it stupidly. Furthermore, just being a service member doesn't make you a hero.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Ring the alarm...
Greetings,
It's been a while since my last post. Not only have I been busy, but I've been overwhelmed by all the "goings-on" in the media lately: VA Scandal, Russia-Ukraine, China bullying the rest of East Asia, shooting in California, Common Core education reform, etc...
The longer the distance of time between my military life and my present status of civilian, the more and more I realize how easy it is to get caught up in the every day struggle of life. Capitalism does have its faults in the sense that it makes us need to focus on money. However, that wasn't an anti-capitalist statement. I'm just sympathizing a bit with the masses that refuse to participate in social and political issues because they are caught up in the struggle to earn a living.
With that being said, we owe it to our children, ourselves, and the longevity of our republic to withstand the urge to ignore politics. All the negativity filling the airwaves today is our fault. We have allowed our country to become ruled by corrupt politicians, corporate interests, and and power hungry bureaucrats. I often hear poor people say that the rich control the world because they have money. I often hear rich people say that time is money. Well, I know that all of us have at least a little time. I see the masses at the malls, sporting events, and in other various places of consumption. However, very few of us get active in even reading about our government and its relationship with "K Street." Shoot, most people don't even know what "K Street" is or what it does.
Now don't take this the wrong way. This is not a plea for the masses to rise up and ask the government to create more bad laws and big programs. This is a plea for the masses to wake up!
You have to realize that the same two parties have been in power for over a century and taken us down this destructive path. Read history, read economics, and read different political philosophy and theory. The classics are a good place to start. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle might help you to understand some of the concepts the Founders held so dear.
I don't want to rant or proselytize. I'm a Libertarian, but I'd be happy to just see people demand that we adopt a new system of voting that doesn't allow two parties to maintain a duopoly on political power and take our country further down the shitter. In most states, you can't even vote in the primary races unless you're registered as a Democrat or Republican. As seen in our last presidential election, the other candidates were not allowed at the debates and were even arrested and detained when trying to enter the debates. Most people didn't even know about the Green Party's nominee (Jill Stein), or the Libertarian Party's nominee (Gary Johnson). Both of them, in my humble opinion, are way more qualified and intelligent people than the two candidates we ended up having to choose between. I don't agree with the Green Party's stance on many issues, but I'd rather have Jill Stein in office than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
Lastly, do a little study in Comparative Politics, meaning, look at other countries' political systems. America doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. As much shit as Americans talk about the French, they have a pretty awesome system of choosing their political leaders. Their semi-presidential system allows for more parties to enter the arena and they don't have a continuous election cycle like we do.
So if you read this, please allocate some time in your schedule to dedicate to being a citizen, just like you allocate time to the gym, watching sports, or anything else you do in life. Our survival as a nation and as a free people depends on all of our participation in this system.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
It's been a while since my last post. Not only have I been busy, but I've been overwhelmed by all the "goings-on" in the media lately: VA Scandal, Russia-Ukraine, China bullying the rest of East Asia, shooting in California, Common Core education reform, etc...
The longer the distance of time between my military life and my present status of civilian, the more and more I realize how easy it is to get caught up in the every day struggle of life. Capitalism does have its faults in the sense that it makes us need to focus on money. However, that wasn't an anti-capitalist statement. I'm just sympathizing a bit with the masses that refuse to participate in social and political issues because they are caught up in the struggle to earn a living.
With that being said, we owe it to our children, ourselves, and the longevity of our republic to withstand the urge to ignore politics. All the negativity filling the airwaves today is our fault. We have allowed our country to become ruled by corrupt politicians, corporate interests, and and power hungry bureaucrats. I often hear poor people say that the rich control the world because they have money. I often hear rich people say that time is money. Well, I know that all of us have at least a little time. I see the masses at the malls, sporting events, and in other various places of consumption. However, very few of us get active in even reading about our government and its relationship with "K Street." Shoot, most people don't even know what "K Street" is or what it does.
Now don't take this the wrong way. This is not a plea for the masses to rise up and ask the government to create more bad laws and big programs. This is a plea for the masses to wake up!
You have to realize that the same two parties have been in power for over a century and taken us down this destructive path. Read history, read economics, and read different political philosophy and theory. The classics are a good place to start. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle might help you to understand some of the concepts the Founders held so dear.
I don't want to rant or proselytize. I'm a Libertarian, but I'd be happy to just see people demand that we adopt a new system of voting that doesn't allow two parties to maintain a duopoly on political power and take our country further down the shitter. In most states, you can't even vote in the primary races unless you're registered as a Democrat or Republican. As seen in our last presidential election, the other candidates were not allowed at the debates and were even arrested and detained when trying to enter the debates. Most people didn't even know about the Green Party's nominee (Jill Stein), or the Libertarian Party's nominee (Gary Johnson). Both of them, in my humble opinion, are way more qualified and intelligent people than the two candidates we ended up having to choose between. I don't agree with the Green Party's stance on many issues, but I'd rather have Jill Stein in office than Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.
Lastly, do a little study in Comparative Politics, meaning, look at other countries' political systems. America doesn't have a monopoly on good ideas. As much shit as Americans talk about the French, they have a pretty awesome system of choosing their political leaders. Their semi-presidential system allows for more parties to enter the arena and they don't have a continuous election cycle like we do.
So if you read this, please allocate some time in your schedule to dedicate to being a citizen, just like you allocate time to the gym, watching sports, or anything else you do in life. Our survival as a nation and as a free people depends on all of our participation in this system.
Until next time, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Monday, May 5, 2014
Sterling, Bundy, and the rest of us...
Greetings from Houston. It's been a while since my last post. Initially, I wanted to write about the controversial "racist" comments made by Cliven Bundy. However, I'm glad I didn't due to the L.A. Clippers incident last week involving more "racist" comments by their owner, Donald Sterling. So I've waited for all the talking heads to exhaust their sensationalized coverage of that story and now want to offer my two cents to anyone who cares.
The two incidents are related due to the nature of the comments and the fact that a large part of the population and media covering these two stories immediately wanted to lash out at the two individuals. Below is what the New York Times published as Cliven Bundy's racist remarks (notice that only remarks made mid conversation are quoted, which doesn't allow us to see the context or which questions were asked of Mr. Bundy):
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Here's the link the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04//24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1
Now here is what Donald Sterling said according to an article on the below listed Sports Illustrated-NBA website and their is also a link to the actual audio tape on TMZ:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? You can sleep with them [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."
http://nba.si.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-nba-investigation-racist-comments-clippers/
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/
So I can agree that both guys made ignorant comments that show signs of bigotry. However, "racist" is a strong word. From what I understand, and according to Merriam-Webster, a racist is "a person who believes that one race should control all others."
So let's analyze this for a minute before we get to the greater issue at hand. Mr. Bundy didn't say that he thought black people should still be slaves, he said that he has "...often wondered, are they better off as slaves...? (refer to earlier paragraph for full quote). " So I personally don't think Cliven Bundy's words to the New York Times are enough to brand him a racist. A bigot, maybe, but that is even debatable. I'd have to get to know him better to make that judgment.
As for Mr. Sterling, it's obvious he's a bigot. But again, I don't think he's a racist. Nor do I think his words are racist in nature. He expressed disdain for his girlfriend's (who happens to be half black) interactions with black men. Now, we can judge him to be a bigot who needs a wake up call. But to brand him a racist is a step too far. Is a white man who dates a woman like V. Stiviano a racist? You judge for yourself. Just google her and look at the images.
The bigger picture here is, yet again, us (as in, We the People). So Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling appear to be disgusting bigots; so what? Does that mean that we should immediately seek out their punishment for words? Is their speech not protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? We're so quick to have governing bodies (whether it's an actual government, or a private association like the NBA) punish people for things we don't agree with or that offend us. I heard an argument recently that it's okay that the NBA took this action because it's a private entity and not the government. Really? So it's okay to have so called "inalienable human rights" abridged by private entities? So it would be okay for private entities to deny Muslims to practice their religion, or gay people to talk about marriage equality, or women to talk about income inequality? So that covers the First Amendment. So what about the Eight Amendment? Was Donald Sterling given an "excessive fine?" I think so. Lastly, some scholars consider the Declaration of Independence to be a "founding" and/or "governing" document. If that is the case, then what about the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Donald Sterling could argue that the NBA is depriving him of the latter two.
Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a defense of Donald Sterling, rather it should be a check on our own hypocrisy. I think most of us are guilty of getting angry when people do things that offend us and wanting the government to do something about it. Or in Cliven Bundy's case, people stop showing support for a cause that may have seemed right to them just because the person representing the cause all the sudden said things that were offensive. I know for me, the case that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. My initial reaction was; "those assholes shouldn't be allowed to say those things out in public, especially near a fallen comrades' funeral." But actually, yes they should. Once I thought more deeply about it, if you take away somebody's right to say things you find offensive, then what about you're right to say things that would offend them in return? I wouldn't want my right to go stand across the street from their church and hold up a sign that says "God Hates Westboro Baptist Idiots" up and yell obscenities at them taken away (I wouldn't do that, but the thought has crossed my mind).
This all boils down to our desire to have "Big Brother" come in and protect us from all things nasty and offensive. Yet we forget that this comes at a cost. When we transfer power to another entity that then holds the power in all future situations of a similar nature, we might not like the outcome. Let me give you an example:
So let's say these recent events lead to some form of legislation that bans the use of "offensive speech toward a particular race, ethnic group, or segment of society." So under this administration, people like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling could be fined, or jailed for the perceivably racist comments they made. Then, let's say we get a George W. Bush type in office next go around and he creates the National Speech Agency to monitor all phone calls and enforce said legislation to a T. Anyone who says things like "I don't want you hanging out with those tea-baggers" and/or "crazy neo-cons," and "don't bring them to my games" could also be jailed or fined. If we go ahead and set the precedent that it is okay to prohibit and punish certain speech, then it may very well lead to such a scenario, and then an Orwellian future isn't far off. We already have the NSA spying on people and we've seen that innocent people have been arrested for being mistaken as terrorists. I personally don't think that becoming a police state with conversations being monitored is the answer to bigotry, or terrorism for that matter.
The bottom line is that we need to accept that society is always going to produce some offensive characters and/or things we find reprehensible. However, that does not mean we should legislate against all of those things. Once you start giving up liberty to legislation that favors you in the moment, that legislation will always be left open to interpretation in the future. And that future may not favor you, or anyone else.
So until the next sensationalized current event sparks a debate, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
The two incidents are related due to the nature of the comments and the fact that a large part of the population and media covering these two stories immediately wanted to lash out at the two individuals. Below is what the New York Times published as Cliven Bundy's racist remarks (notice that only remarks made mid conversation are quoted, which doesn't allow us to see the context or which questions were asked of Mr. Bundy):
"I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro," Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, "and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids - and there is always at least half a dozen people sitting on the porch - they didn't have nothing to do. They didn't have nothing for their kids to do. They didn't have nothing for their young girls to do. And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned to pick cotton. And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn't get no more freedom. They got less freedom."
Here's the link the NY Times story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04//24/us/politics/rancher-proudly-breaks-the-law-becoming-a-hero-in-the-west.html?ref=us&_r=1
Now here is what Donald Sterling said according to an article on the below listed Sports Illustrated-NBA website and their is also a link to the actual audio tape on TMZ:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? You can sleep with them [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."
http://nba.si.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-nba-investigation-racist-comments-clippers/
http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/
So I can agree that both guys made ignorant comments that show signs of bigotry. However, "racist" is a strong word. From what I understand, and according to Merriam-Webster, a racist is "a person who believes that one race should control all others."
So let's analyze this for a minute before we get to the greater issue at hand. Mr. Bundy didn't say that he thought black people should still be slaves, he said that he has "...often wondered, are they better off as slaves...? (refer to earlier paragraph for full quote). " So I personally don't think Cliven Bundy's words to the New York Times are enough to brand him a racist. A bigot, maybe, but that is even debatable. I'd have to get to know him better to make that judgment.
As for Mr. Sterling, it's obvious he's a bigot. But again, I don't think he's a racist. Nor do I think his words are racist in nature. He expressed disdain for his girlfriend's (who happens to be half black) interactions with black men. Now, we can judge him to be a bigot who needs a wake up call. But to brand him a racist is a step too far. Is a white man who dates a woman like V. Stiviano a racist? You judge for yourself. Just google her and look at the images.
The bigger picture here is, yet again, us (as in, We the People). So Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling appear to be disgusting bigots; so what? Does that mean that we should immediately seek out their punishment for words? Is their speech not protected under the Constitution of the United States of America? We're so quick to have governing bodies (whether it's an actual government, or a private association like the NBA) punish people for things we don't agree with or that offend us. I heard an argument recently that it's okay that the NBA took this action because it's a private entity and not the government. Really? So it's okay to have so called "inalienable human rights" abridged by private entities? So it would be okay for private entities to deny Muslims to practice their religion, or gay people to talk about marriage equality, or women to talk about income inequality? So that covers the First Amendment. So what about the Eight Amendment? Was Donald Sterling given an "excessive fine?" I think so. Lastly, some scholars consider the Declaration of Independence to be a "founding" and/or "governing" document. If that is the case, then what about the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Donald Sterling could argue that the NBA is depriving him of the latter two.
Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a defense of Donald Sterling, rather it should be a check on our own hypocrisy. I think most of us are guilty of getting angry when people do things that offend us and wanting the government to do something about it. Or in Cliven Bundy's case, people stop showing support for a cause that may have seemed right to them just because the person representing the cause all the sudden said things that were offensive. I know for me, the case that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. My initial reaction was; "those assholes shouldn't be allowed to say those things out in public, especially near a fallen comrades' funeral." But actually, yes they should. Once I thought more deeply about it, if you take away somebody's right to say things you find offensive, then what about you're right to say things that would offend them in return? I wouldn't want my right to go stand across the street from their church and hold up a sign that says "God Hates Westboro Baptist Idiots" up and yell obscenities at them taken away (I wouldn't do that, but the thought has crossed my mind).
This all boils down to our desire to have "Big Brother" come in and protect us from all things nasty and offensive. Yet we forget that this comes at a cost. When we transfer power to another entity that then holds the power in all future situations of a similar nature, we might not like the outcome. Let me give you an example:
So let's say these recent events lead to some form of legislation that bans the use of "offensive speech toward a particular race, ethnic group, or segment of society." So under this administration, people like Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling could be fined, or jailed for the perceivably racist comments they made. Then, let's say we get a George W. Bush type in office next go around and he creates the National Speech Agency to monitor all phone calls and enforce said legislation to a T. Anyone who says things like "I don't want you hanging out with those tea-baggers" and/or "crazy neo-cons," and "don't bring them to my games" could also be jailed or fined. If we go ahead and set the precedent that it is okay to prohibit and punish certain speech, then it may very well lead to such a scenario, and then an Orwellian future isn't far off. We already have the NSA spying on people and we've seen that innocent people have been arrested for being mistaken as terrorists. I personally don't think that becoming a police state with conversations being monitored is the answer to bigotry, or terrorism for that matter.
The bottom line is that we need to accept that society is always going to produce some offensive characters and/or things we find reprehensible. However, that does not mean we should legislate against all of those things. Once you start giving up liberty to legislation that favors you in the moment, that legislation will always be left open to interpretation in the future. And that future may not favor you, or anyone else.
So until the next sensationalized current event sparks a debate, stay conscious my friends.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Cliven Bundy vs The BLM
Greetings,
So things are still heating up between Ukraine, Russia, The EU (European Union), and the USA. But I think the bigger story is the showdown in Nevada.
Now, regardless from which source you consume your news, this story represents a bigger problem in American government.
I'm not going to get into taking sides with the feds or Cliven Bundy. I think both sides have done things wrong. First, the federal government made bad laws and created agencies with too much power over individual life and liberty. However, Cliven Bundy knowingly broke the law. After what went down with Gibson guitars a few years ago (http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department ), it seems like American citizens would have realized that the federal government has the "right" to do anything it wants. I do commend Cliven Bundy on standing up to the feds and purposely disobeying an unjust law knowing the consequences.
But I digress. In keeping with the theme of this blog, the larger problem lies within "We the people." As I've said before, we generally care more about the Kardashians or the Final Four than we do about our own government. We elect politicians who then vote such legislation into law. All party affiliates are at fault. Libertarians are notorious for not going to the polls en masse until its too late. Republicans and Democrats care more about keeping someone with an (R) or a (D) in front of their name rather than doing what's right for the country. So we continue to reelect people who vote for bad legislation. Gibson Guitars is just one example of the repercussions of this lack of participation on our part. Gibson was one of the few remaining American made producers. Now they have to import wood in its finished form, taking jobs away from the Americans previously finishing that wood before it was transformed into a guitar. Similarly, Cliven Bundy runs a ranch that employs people, and provides food to the local market. Now, that may all be gone very soon.
According to Politico.com, the federal government owns a little more than 81% of land in Nevada, which is "managed" by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). So to protect some desert tortoises and some rare flowers, we have this huge government agency who comes and inhibits a cattle rancher's ability to make money. That's what it all boils down to. So I guess we'd rather Cliven Bundy go apply for welfare and unemployment so that some desert tortoises may live? That would be more acceptable, right? So our taxes pay for the BLM, the public land it manages, and then maybe Cliven Bundy's welfare check because he can't graze his cattle on land that is not even being used for anything by the feds except protection of an animal that provides no apparent benefit to the nation as a whole.
Another story that isn't making it to the mainstream is how the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has colluded with the Chinese to build a solar energy plant on the land (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/). Furthermore, the price to lease land for grazing rights in that part of the country is around 25 cents an acre for a 99 year lease. Bundy says he estimates that he only owes $300,000 and he's actually willing to pay it. But this issue of the money he owed never came up until he refused to be kicked off the land to save the desert tortoise.
But let me get back to the issue. Cliven Bundy, Gibson Guitars, and any other person or company doesn't matter. It's really about the psychology of the American public as a whole. Why do we allow the government, which we fund, to do the things it does? Why do we give up responsibility for governing ourselves at the micro level to a big bureaucracy who messes things up the majority of the time? It doesn't take the EPA, or BLM, or anyone else to save the desert tortoise, or the rare wood used in Gibson Guitars. And in my opinion, the federal government has no business owning "public lands" except for military bases and federal buildings. Do you really believe that the federal government is the only benevolent entity that is capable of maintaining parks and land for the good of the people? And even if you do believe that, why should all taxpayers pay for land that is used for a small majority of people's recreation, or to protect animals? Isn't that what zoos and private parks are for? Or at least state and city parks? Do you really want the feds coming in from Washington, D.C. to tell you what you can do in your own backyard? Do you think that they are capable of understanding what goes on in your own backyard?
The answer to these problems lies within us. We only have ourselves to blame for allowing people like Harry Reid to stay in office for so long. Go vote. Get active in all levels of politics. Take responsibility for managing your own life. Is education or medical treatment really a human right? Think about it. That means that an educator or a doctor will be forced to give you a service that you think you are entitled to. So that must mean doctors and educators aren't human because they don't have the right to deprive you of a service that you believe is your right. We heading down a path to severe oppression because "we the people" expect/want too much from our government. Think about it, what will we do when there aren't enough doctors or educators to provide these supposed human rights? I guess the government will then have to step in yet again to force people to become educators and doctors in order to provide the citizenry with their assumed human rights. Think about that the next time you see the bumper sticker reading "Healthcare is a Human Right." When we give the government the power/responsibility to govern aspects of our life, we also give up certain liberties.
This has been more of a plea to my fellow citizens to stand up and start taking back responsibility for own lives in order to make this country a better place. How many more Gibson Guitar or Cliven Bundy incidents will it take for us to do something? Or, how many more wars will we have to allow our politicians to put us in before we actually start participating in our government? I hope not too many.
Until next time, stay active and please participate in the operations of this republic, before it's too late.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
So things are still heating up between Ukraine, Russia, The EU (European Union), and the USA. But I think the bigger story is the showdown in Nevada.
Now, regardless from which source you consume your news, this story represents a bigger problem in American government.
I'm not going to get into taking sides with the feds or Cliven Bundy. I think both sides have done things wrong. First, the federal government made bad laws and created agencies with too much power over individual life and liberty. However, Cliven Bundy knowingly broke the law. After what went down with Gibson guitars a few years ago (http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department ), it seems like American citizens would have realized that the federal government has the "right" to do anything it wants. I do commend Cliven Bundy on standing up to the feds and purposely disobeying an unjust law knowing the consequences.
But I digress. In keeping with the theme of this blog, the larger problem lies within "We the people." As I've said before, we generally care more about the Kardashians or the Final Four than we do about our own government. We elect politicians who then vote such legislation into law. All party affiliates are at fault. Libertarians are notorious for not going to the polls en masse until its too late. Republicans and Democrats care more about keeping someone with an (R) or a (D) in front of their name rather than doing what's right for the country. So we continue to reelect people who vote for bad legislation. Gibson Guitars is just one example of the repercussions of this lack of participation on our part. Gibson was one of the few remaining American made producers. Now they have to import wood in its finished form, taking jobs away from the Americans previously finishing that wood before it was transformed into a guitar. Similarly, Cliven Bundy runs a ranch that employs people, and provides food to the local market. Now, that may all be gone very soon.
According to Politico.com, the federal government owns a little more than 81% of land in Nevada, which is "managed" by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). So to protect some desert tortoises and some rare flowers, we have this huge government agency who comes and inhibits a cattle rancher's ability to make money. That's what it all boils down to. So I guess we'd rather Cliven Bundy go apply for welfare and unemployment so that some desert tortoises may live? That would be more acceptable, right? So our taxes pay for the BLM, the public land it manages, and then maybe Cliven Bundy's welfare check because he can't graze his cattle on land that is not even being used for anything by the feds except protection of an animal that provides no apparent benefit to the nation as a whole.
Another story that isn't making it to the mainstream is how the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has colluded with the Chinese to build a solar energy plant on the land (http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/harry-reids-last-roundup/). Furthermore, the price to lease land for grazing rights in that part of the country is around 25 cents an acre for a 99 year lease. Bundy says he estimates that he only owes $300,000 and he's actually willing to pay it. But this issue of the money he owed never came up until he refused to be kicked off the land to save the desert tortoise.
But let me get back to the issue. Cliven Bundy, Gibson Guitars, and any other person or company doesn't matter. It's really about the psychology of the American public as a whole. Why do we allow the government, which we fund, to do the things it does? Why do we give up responsibility for governing ourselves at the micro level to a big bureaucracy who messes things up the majority of the time? It doesn't take the EPA, or BLM, or anyone else to save the desert tortoise, or the rare wood used in Gibson Guitars. And in my opinion, the federal government has no business owning "public lands" except for military bases and federal buildings. Do you really believe that the federal government is the only benevolent entity that is capable of maintaining parks and land for the good of the people? And even if you do believe that, why should all taxpayers pay for land that is used for a small majority of people's recreation, or to protect animals? Isn't that what zoos and private parks are for? Or at least state and city parks? Do you really want the feds coming in from Washington, D.C. to tell you what you can do in your own backyard? Do you think that they are capable of understanding what goes on in your own backyard?
The answer to these problems lies within us. We only have ourselves to blame for allowing people like Harry Reid to stay in office for so long. Go vote. Get active in all levels of politics. Take responsibility for managing your own life. Is education or medical treatment really a human right? Think about it. That means that an educator or a doctor will be forced to give you a service that you think you are entitled to. So that must mean doctors and educators aren't human because they don't have the right to deprive you of a service that you believe is your right. We heading down a path to severe oppression because "we the people" expect/want too much from our government. Think about it, what will we do when there aren't enough doctors or educators to provide these supposed human rights? I guess the government will then have to step in yet again to force people to become educators and doctors in order to provide the citizenry with their assumed human rights. Think about that the next time you see the bumper sticker reading "Healthcare is a Human Right." When we give the government the power/responsibility to govern aspects of our life, we also give up certain liberties.
This has been more of a plea to my fellow citizens to stand up and start taking back responsibility for own lives in order to make this country a better place. How many more Gibson Guitar or Cliven Bundy incidents will it take for us to do something? Or, how many more wars will we have to allow our politicians to put us in before we actually start participating in our government? I hope not too many.
Until next time, stay active and please participate in the operations of this republic, before it's too late.
Semper Fi,
Chris Bentley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)